h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm sure we've all been following the situation in Georgia. Tonight the situation has grown more serious.

Whilst Russian troops restricted themselves to South Ossetia, there was a shaky justification for their actions. Trying to balance the two sides of the story presented in the media was difficult as each side blamed the other, but tonight - for me, my mind was made up.

On Ch4 News, the Russian Deputy Prime Minister was adamant that no Russian troops were on Georgian soil outside of S Ossetia and Abkhazia. He was challenged by the reporter who pointed out that the Russian Defence Ministry had admitted the opposite. The DPM blustered and outright lied. He then went on to say that S Ossetia would never be part of Georgia again.

Tonight, UN observers have confirmed that Russian troops are driving deep into Georgia.

What can the West do? Should the West do anything?

It's notable that the Germans, who are heavily dependant upon Russian pipelines, are refusing to criticise Russia. Is this a foretaste of the future if a unified Europe becomes a reality - that it will have a rope around it's neck firmly held by Russia?

This is a big subject and there's a lot I've not covered, but maybe this can be the starting point for a discussion.

Well, Merkel's heading out tomorrow to try and mediate (for all the good it'll do) so at least the Germans are doing something.

The whole thing just seems like the Georgians' posturing went too far, and the Russians are taking full advantage in order to remind everyone that in that part of the world, they're still top dog.

The West can get out of the Middle East so they aren't hypocrites when they condemn the Russians in Georgia.

Do we really want to have a country in NATO that picks fights with Russia ? If they join NATO we would be obliged to come their aid . What possible advantage would having them as members have for us ?
I spent my chidhood and teenage years watching things like Threads on tv and worrying that the soviets were going rain ICBM's onto my house . I do not wish to spend my middle age worrying about exactly the same thing . Most people have never heard of south ossetia and certainly could not point to it on a map . Why should any british family send there sons and daughters of to war to fight for a country they have never heard of ?

Today the the phone box says 'Kung Fu Panda'

[click for pic http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3090/2636074097_0160acdcc2.jpg]

It's outrageous what's happening in Georgia. OK, it wasn't a smart move to go into South Ossetia, but now this has to stop.

I understand the geostrategic stuff around Russia and energy supplies, but if we're not careful we will see Georgia as a nice friendly client state for them again, and if they get away with that, the Ukraine is next.

In passing, a good friend of mine was posted out there a year ago. When I emailed him I got an out of office - I hope he took his holidays outside of Georgia this year...

sprout

yes, poking sleeping bears (or even ones just waking up) is never a good move. The Georgian president is by no means the pure clean western democrat some sources make him out to be, and he badly miscalculated when he fell into the Russian trap.

OTOH Russia have been stirring things in the area for a long time just waiting for this to happen.

It is interesting to see what is and isn't reported. For example, there were Israeli advisors helping the Georgian attack on s.ossetia when it happened.

Then there's the joint statement by Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Poland here : http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/baltics_cis/?doc=4027

which starts "We, the leaders of the former captive nations from Eastern Europe" which shows the level of feeling involved.

If there is a simple take on it then it was that Georgia let their feelings get the better of them and rush into a foolish military adventure. Russia egged them on and then responded disproportionately.

I do find it rather daft that the former imperial power was chosen as the peacekeeping force, hardly a neutral entity for such a role.

And finally, this is not over, not by a long shot.

I think we're going to be pulled in, whether we like it or not. Poland and the Baltic states (EU and NATO states all) have all said they strongly condemn Russian actions, and Estonia has pledged material support to defend Georgia against the sort of cyberterrorism they were the victims of last year. In response Russia has told them to butt out or face the consequences.

There's also the Ukrainians saying they won't allow the Russian Black Sea fleet back into Sebastopol if they carry out hostile actions against Georgia.

Yes, it was stupid for Georgia to attack South Ossetia, but Russia has been interfering in Georgia since 1991. Giving Abkhazians and South Ossetians passports and then claiming to be defending "it's citizens" while it merrily bombs Chechnya back into the Stone Age, is despicable.

Not sure what we can do - there's no chance of UN peacekeepers going in, and I really doubt we'll see NATO sending anyone in because they're overstretched as it is.

Might give McCain an advantage in the US election though.

Although if Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia do provide material assistance won't that have an impact on NATO and the EU as they are members? Russia could see their involvement, if with no consequences if they go against the NATO line, as being implicitly agreed to by NATO and drag everyone in that way?

And let's not forget Turkey in all this. They're not going to be overly chuffed about Russia flexing her muscles so close to home. And the Ukraine (well, half of it anyway) will be on edge over this as well.

>It's notable that the Germans, who are heavily dependant upon Russian pipelines, are refusing to criticise Russia. Is this a foretaste of the future if a unified Europe becomes a reality - that it will have a rope around it's neck firmly held by Russia?

It's not just Germany, an enormous number of European countries (including the UK) import Russian oil and gas. They do this because it makes economic sense. It's how the market works.

And, since I suspect you're playing your usual "America is strong but Europe is weak" card, the USA aren't dependent on Russian oil and gas so they can afford to act tough. When they are dependent on a country's oil they adopt the German position (see Saudi Arabia, the totalitarian country the USA has a close relationship with).

The Russians have said they're ceasing operation in Georgia, which I assume means "mission accomplished". Given that the severest setback they've recieved from the West is some "strong words" from President Bush (which contained no threat whatsoever, not that the USA can actually practically do anything) we can assume they weren't pressured into it.

This might not be over, Georgia has signalled it will leave the CIS and regards the Russian "peacekeepers" in South Ossetia (who've been there for ages) as an occupying force. This essentially ends the agreement the two country's reached in 1994.

>Might give McCain an advantage in the US election though.

So you think Obama's weak on foreign policy, then?

>And the Ukraine (well, half of it anyway) will be on edge over this as well.

I think Ukraine is militarily far more prepared to defend herself from Russian military aggression. What is more of a concern for that country is her reliance on Russian energy supplies.

>s this a foretaste of the future if a unified Europe becomes a reality - that it will have a rope around it's neck firmly held by Russia?

Actually I need to pick you up on this for shameless politicing. A disunited Europe is just at much risk from Russian energy blackmailing as a United one, indeed more so since smaller countries won't have the backing of a strong Confederation/Federation is confront Russia.

>The Georgian president is by no means the pure clean western democrat some sources make him out to be

What do you mean? Was his election not democratic or are you referring to his policies?

I think the more conservative parties are usually going to do well out of this sort of situation, since they're more often for pro-military and patriotic.

Give peace a chance looks less convincing when the other players are acting like bullies.

>>So you think Obama's weak on foreign policy, then?<<

I was thinking more the fact that the Republicans always beat the Democrats on security/military issues, rather than specifically foreign policy. One of the reasons Kerry lost to Bush was because a lot of the debate was on military issues and even though Kerry was a war veteran and Bush was a draft-dodger, the Democrats are always seen as weak militarily.

That said, I'm don't think Obama has much foreign policy experience at all, but then neither has McCain. The difference is, Obama is viewed very positively around the world - he could probably make great use of American soft power.

">And the Ukraine (well, half of it anyway) will be on edge over this as well.

I think Ukraine is militarily far more prepared to defend herself from Russian military aggression. What is more of a concern for that country is her reliance on Russian energy supplies."

i was more thinking that the Ukraine is also a country where certain regions want to be closer to Russia and others closer to the West, and the current government is more pro-west. Seeing that Russia is willing to militarily stand up for break away sections that want to be with her might be seen as an encouragement to those who wish to do so and thus potentially reignite, or further stir, the contention between the two sides. Thus the Ukraine government would probably rather this wasn;t happening.

"What do you mean? Was his election not democratic or are you referring to his policies?"
Policies, or rather the actions taken under those policies.

I know next to nothing about the situation in Georgia other than what I've read in newspaper articles over the last few days.

There's a tendency in these situations to try to work out who the "bad guy" is and react accordingly - I find myself doing this. But I think the situation is much more complicated than just working out who the goodies and baddies are, and supporting the underdog. I'm not a big fan of Russia, but it's far from clear to me that Georgia is entirely the innocent party here.

This is one of the best articles I've found so far:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/russia.georgia

The underlying issue is what is to be done about small provinces or mini-statelets that want either independence from, or autonomy within, the country that they currently find themselves in. It seems that South Ossetia used to be an autonomous province, but this status was taken away by Georgia. As the above article argues, why support Kosovo against Serbia, but not South Ossetia against Georgia?

It seems that there are many similar minorities and provinces and statelets and border disputes among many of the former Soviet States, but there's also the Kurdish question, Serbia/Kosovo/Albania, and many places around the world where post-colonial states are based on arbitrary great power boundaries rather than along ethnic/cultural/linguistic/religious lines.

What's needed is some work on producing a series of workable constitutional models for autonomous and semi-autonomous regions in larger states, for federal and confederal states, and so on. There's plenty of states like this in existence (including the UK, these days). I'd like to see the UN becoming involved in addressing this question in the abstract, rather than around particular cases, and producing some kind of catalogue to lay out options as the basis for negotiations.

"...The key Russian demands are that the Georgian leader pledges, in an agreement that is signed and legally binding, to abjure all use of force in his country in any attempt to resolve the territorial disputes with the two breakaway pro-Russian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia; and that Georgian forces withdraw entirely from South Ossetia and are no longer part of the joint "peacekeeping" contingent there with Russian and local Ossetian forces.

Medvedev also insisted that the populations of the two breakaway regions had to be allowed to vote on whether they wanted to join Russia, prefiguring a possible annexation by Moscow that would enfeeble and diminish Georgia and leave Saakashvili looking crushed..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/12/russia.georgia1